DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 10/24/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “the side of said face” in line 9. It appears that the claim should recite “a side of said face” in line 9. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3 recites “the reinforcing fibers” in line 2. For consistency with claim 1, claim 3 should recite “the thick reinforcing fibers” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6 recites “the visible face” in line 3. It appears that the claim should recite “a visible face” in line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribes et al. (US Patent Application No. 2019/0241133) in view of Lecomte et al. (WO 2021/001521, see machine translated version).
Regarding claim 1, Ribes et al. teach an acoustic and thermal protective shield for a motor vehicle (page 1, paragraph [0023]), said shield comprising a porous shell based on fibers bound by a bonding agent (page 1, paragraph [0024]), a spring layer based on elastically compressible polyurethane foam (page 1, paragraph [0025]), said shield further having the following features: said spring layer is obtained by reaction injection molding (RIM) (page 1, paragraphs [0026], [0027]), said layer overmolding the shell (a back face of said shell) (page 1, paragraph [0027]), said shell having a porosity enabling said foam to create a sealed skin on the side of said face (page 1, paragraph [0028]), wherein a sufficient fraction of thickness of the shell remain exempt of foam (said shell is substantially free of foam penetration across its thickness) (page 1, paragraphs [0029], [0036]).
Ribes et al. fail to teach wherein said fibers include two types of fibers: thick reinforcing fibers in an amount from 25 to 40% by weight of said shell, and fine fibers in an amount from 35 to 50% by weight of said shell, the bonding agent formed by fusible fibers in an amount from 35 to 50% by weight of said shell. However, Lecomte et al. teach an acoustic protection screen for a motor vehicle (paragraph [0016]), said screen comprising two types of fibers (paragraphs [0017], [0018]): fibers with a count between 6 and 7 dtex (thick reinforcing fibers) (paragraph [0018]) in an amount between 25% and 35% which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 25 to 40% by weight (paragraph [0018]) and fibers with a count between 1.5 and 2 dtex (fine fibers) (paragraph [0017]) in an amount between 25% and 35% which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 15 to 35% (paragraph [0017]) and binding fibers in an amount between 35% and 45% which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 35 to 50% by weight (paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the two types of fibers of Lecomte et al. in the shell of Ribes et al. in order to provide an optimized compromise between rigidity, resistance to the projection of gravel and acoustic absorption properties (Lecomte et al., paragraphs [0015], [0016], [0024]-[0027]) and use binding fibers to ensure inter-fiber connection (Lecomte et al., paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 2, Ribes et al. teach wherein a sufficient fraction of thickness of the shell remain exempt of foam (page 1, paragraphs [0029], [0036]).
Ribes et al. do not disclose wherein the fraction of the thickness of the shell penetrated by the foam being smaller than 0.5 mm. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in thickness involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the fraction of the thickness of the shell penetrated by the foam in order to enable the shield to have satisfactory acoustic absorption properties (Ribes et al., page 1, paragraphs [0029], [0036]).
Regarding claim 3, Ribes et al. fail to teach wherein the reinforcing fibers are at least one of a group including polyethylene terephthalate fibers with a tier comprised between 6 and 7 dtex, glass fibers with a diameter comprised between 20 and 30 microns, and and/or natural fibers selected in one single type of as a mixture of different types. However, Lecomte et al. teach an acoustic protection screen for a motor vehicle (paragraph [0016]), said screen comprising two types of fibers (paragraphs [0017], [0018]): fibers with a count between 6 and 7 dtex (thick reinforcing fibers) (paragraph [0018]) in an amount between 25% and 35% (paragraph [0018]) and fibers with a count between 1.5 and 2 dtex (fine fibers) (paragraph [0017]) in an amount between 25% and 35% (paragraph [0017]) and binding fibers in an amount between 35% and 45% (paragraph [0018]), wherein the fibers with a count between 6 and 7 dtex (thick reinforcing fibers) (paragraph [0018]) are polyethylene terephthalate fibers with a count between 6 and 7 dtex (paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the two types of fibers of Lecomte et al. in the shell of Ribes et al. in order to provide an optimized compromise between rigidity, resistance to the projection of gravel and acoustic absorption properties (Lecomte et al., paragraphs [0015], [0016], [0024]-[0027]).
Regarding claim 4, Ribes et al. fail to wherein the fine fibers are based on polyethylene terephthalate with a titer comprised between 1.5 and 3.3 dtex. However, Lecomte et al. teach an acoustic protection screen for a motor vehicle (paragraph [0016]), said screen comprising two types of fibers (paragraphs [0017], [0018]): fibers with a count between 6 and 7 dtex (thick reinforcing fibers) (paragraph [0018]) in an amount between 25% and 35% (paragraph [0018]) and fibers with a count between 1.5 and 2 dtex (fine fibers) (paragraph [0017]) in an amount between 25% and 35% (paragraph [0017]) and binding fibers in an amount between 35% and 45% (paragraph [0018]), wherein the fibers with a count between 1.5 and 2 tdex (fine fibers) (paragraph [0017]) are based on polyethylene terephthalate with a count between 1.5 and 2 dtex which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of between 1.5 and 3.3 dtex (paragraph [0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the two types of fibers of Lecomte et al. in the shell of Ribes et al. in order to provide an optimized compromise between rigidity, resistance to the projection of gravel and acoustic absorption properties (Lecomte et al., paragraphs [0015], [0016], [0024]-[0027]).
Regarding claim 5, Ribes et al. fail to teach wherein the bonding fibers being at least one of a group including polypropylene fibers, and bi-component fibers comprising a core with a high melting point and a sheath with a lower melting point, said sheath ensuring bonding between the fibers following melting thereof. However, Lecomte et al. teach an acoustic protection screen for a motor vehicle (paragraph [0016]), said screen comprising two types of fibers (paragraphs [0017], [0018]): fibers with a count between 6 and 7 dtex (thick reinforcing fibers) (paragraph [0018]) in an amount between 25% and 35% (paragraph [0018]) and fibers with a count between 1.5 and 2 dtex (fine fibers) (paragraph [0017]) in an amount between 25% and 35% (paragraph [0017]) and binding fibers in an amount between 35% and 45% (paragraph [0018]), wherein the binding fibers being at least one of a group including polypropylene fibers (paragraph [0041]) and bi-component fibers comprising a core with a high melting point and a sheath with a lower melting point, said sheath ensuring the connection between the fibers following its melting (paragraphs [0039], [0040]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the two types of fibers of Lecomte et al. in the shell of Ribes et al. in order to provide an optimized compromise between rigidity, resistance to the projection of gravel and acoustic absorption properties (Lecomte et al., paragraphs [0015], [0016], [0024]-[0027]).
Regarding claim 6, Ribes et al. teach a mounting of a shield (page 2, paragraph [0057]) according to an acoustic and thermal protective shield for a motor vehicle (page 1, paragraph [0023]), said shield comprising a porous shell based on fibers bound by a bonding agent (page 1, paragraph [0024]), a spring layer based on elastically compressible polyurethane foam (page 1, paragraph [0025]), said shield further having the following features: said spring layer is obtained by reaction injection molding (RIM) (page 1, paragraphs [0026], [0027]), said layer overmolding the shell (a back face of said shell) (page 1, paragraph [0027]), said shell having a porosity enabling said foam to create a sealed skin on the side of said face (page 1, paragraph [0028]), wherein a sufficient fraction of thickness of the shell remain exempt of foam (said shell is substantially free of foam penetration across its thickness) (page 1, paragraphs [0029], [0036]), said mounting comprising said shield and a component to be protected, said component being delimited by a wall, the visible face of the spring layer being shaped so as to substantially conform to the shape of said wall, so as to allow optimization of the acoustic and thermal insulation (page 2, paragraph [0057]).
Ribes et al. fail to teach wherein said fibers include two types of fibers: thick reinforcing fibers in an amount from 25 to 40% by weight of said shell, and fine fibers in an amount from 35 to 50% by weight of said shell, the bonding agent formed by fusible fibers in an amount from 35 to 50% by weight of said shell. However, Lecomte et al. teach an acoustic protection screen for a motor vehicle (paragraph [0016]), said screen comprising two types of fibers (paragraphs [0017], [0018]): fibers with a count between 6 and 7 dtex (thick reinforcing fibers) (paragraph [0018]) in an amount between 25% and 35% (paragraph [0018]) and fibers with a count between 1.5 and 2 dtex (fine fibers) (paragraph [0017]) in an amount between 25% and 35% (paragraph [0017]) and binding fibers in an amount between 35% and 45% (paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the two types of fibers of Lecomte et al. in the shell of Ribes et al. in order to provide an optimized compromise between rigidity, resistance to the projection of gravel and acoustic absorption properties (Lecomte et al., paragraphs [0015], [0016], [0024]-[0027]) and use binding fibers to ensure inter-fiber connection (Lecomte et al., paragraph [0028]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 12/11/2025